![Sam Bankman-Fried trial [Day 16] — latest update: Live coverage](https://images.cointelegraph.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,onerror=redirect,quality=90,width=1200/https://s3.cointelegraph.com/uploads/2023-10/8c987bc0-629b-4bdf-bdc1-a38e679df2f9.jpg)
Sam Bankman-Fried trial [Day 16] — latest update: Live coverage
More Videos
Published
1 year agoon
By
adminCointelegraph reporters are on the ground in New York bringing you live coverage of the trial of former FTX CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried. As the saga unfolds, check below for the latest SBF updates.

Nov. 1: US attorneys deliver closing arguments at the SBF trial
Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried’s trial has entered the final stages, with the prosecution delivering its closing arguments in the case on Nov. 1.
“That’s fraud. It’s stealing, plain and simple. Before FTX, there was Alameda,” Assistant United States Attorney Nicolas Roos reportedly told jurors, presenting one of the many charts the government used as evidence.
The former CEO of FTX is facing seven counts of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. Bankman-Fried could serve up to 115 years in prison if convicted. A jury of 12 will decide his fate in the coming days.
Bankman-Fried’s defense faces a tough challenge in persuading jurors that he is innocent of the charges, as the government presented extensive evidence, including testimony from officials and law enforcement agents involved in the case. Check out the full story here.
Oct. 31: Trial heads toward closing remarks
Bankman-Fried resumed his testimony on Oct. 31, with prosecutor Danielle Sassoon of the Southern District of New York asking the former FTX CEO about whether he believed it was permissible to spend $8 billion in customer deposits.
“I thought it was folded into risk management,” he reportedly said. “As CEO of Alameda, I was concerned with their portfolio. At FTX, I was paying attention but not as much as I should have been.“
“You said it [regulations] was P.R. [public relations]?” Sassoon reportedly asked. Bankman-Fried responded: “I said something like that.”
Lead defense attorney Mark Cohen’s request to have Bankman-Fried acquitted was denied by Judge Lewis Kaplan, opening the door for closing arguments to be heard on Nov. 1. Neither the defense nor the prosecution intend to call any additional witnesses.
Oct. 30: “Fuck regulators,” said SBF behind closed doors
Despite publicly supporting drafting crypto regulation to protect customers, Bankman-Fried appears to have shared a deep disdain for regulators.
During SBF’s ongoing criminal trial, Assistant U.S. Prosecutor Danielle Sassoon inquired if the crypto executive could recall his previous Twitter statements regarding his support of blockchain regulation to protect customers. “I don’t remember,” SBF said. Sassoon asked, “But in private, you said, fuck regulators, right?”
“I said that once,” SBF replied. Among other profanities, the former crypto executive also stated that he viewed a “subset of people” on Crypto Twitter as “dumb motherfuckers.” Before his arrest, SBF testified in a 2021 hearing before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee on crypto regulation.
“You said it [regulations] was P.R. [public relations]?” asked Sassoon. SBF responded, “I said something like that.”
During additional questioning, SBF also claimed that the benefits of helping draft crypto regulation included assisting in FTX taking market share from competitor exchange Binance. Before FTX’s collapse last November, SBF revealed that the exchange, along with sister hedge fund Alameda Research, held close to $15 billion in customers’ deposits, with $10 billion reported missing.
On Nov. 8, 2022, Binance founder Changpeng Zhao signed a letter of intent to acquire FTX. The deal fell apart just a day later after Binance reportedly viewed FTX’s books and discovered the asset discrepancy. SBF recalled that on Nov. 7, 2022, customer net withdrawals amounted to $4 billion, or 100 times the volume of an average trading day, sending the company into a deep liquidity crisis.
Oct. 27: Bankman-Fried faces jurors
Bankman-Fried recognized that a “lot of people got hurt” due to FTX’s collapse but denied any wrongdoing in the exchange’s relationship with Alameda Research.
“I made a number of small mistakes and a number of big mistakes,” he told jurors in the first minutes of his testimony on Oct. 27. Jurors are listening to Bankman-Fried’s testimony for the first time. A hearing was held with him on Oct. 26 without the jurors present.
Compared with the previous day, Bankman-Fried appeared to be much better prepared for questions this morning. He delivered the jurors a narrative of FTX’s inception, its first months in business and its relationship with Alameda. According to him, Alameda was the primary market maker and liquidity provider of FTX, which meant it would be responsible for covering customer losses if FTX’s risk engine failed.
Due to Alameda’s role in FTX, it received customized features in FTX code, such as the ability to go negative without activating the risk engine. The exemption, according to him, was necessary to avoid Alameda’s potential liquidation, which would have an adverse impact on the crypto markets.
Bankman-Fried also noted that as a customer and liquidity provider for FTX, Alameda was able to borrow funds from the exchange if collateral was provided. As per FTX’s terms of use, borrowers would not have any restrictions on using borrowed funds, meaning Alameda could use the funds for trading purposes.
FTX’s former CEO also noted that Alameda handled wire transactions on behalf of FTX, acting as a payment processor for the platform.
In response to a question regarding whether he knew how FTX’s customer deposits on Alameda’s account were traced, he replied, “I wish I had a better understanding than I did.”
Bankman-Fried also pointed out that the exchange’s terms of use had a provision regarding the clawback of funds. According to the document, margin trading and futures would fall under the provision stating:
“Your account balance may be subject to claw back due to losses suffered by other users.”
The provision was intended to ensure that if FTX was unable to cover losses related to spot margin and futures, damages could be shared among all customers.
Overall, his testimony argued that the company’s relationship was protected by legal documents, though mistakes were made during the bull market’s speedy expansion. Bankman-Fried will continue to be examined by the defense, followed by a cross-examination by the prosecution.
Oct. 26: Prosecutors rest their case
Attendees of Sam Bankman-Fried’s trial on Oct. 26 had a disappointing morning as attorneys from both sides kept an endless cycle of repeated questions, sidebars and objections, prompting District Court Judge Kaplan to interrupt witness testimony and urge attorneys to move forward.
Prosecutors rested their case early this morning after FBI Agent Mark Troiano briefly testified as the last government witness. In his analysis, more than 300 Signal groups with Bankman-Fried were examined. Most of these groups had enabled the auto-delete feature, which deletes messages after a specified period.
Following a short break, the defense called as a witness Bahamas attorney Krystal Rolle, who represented Bankman-Fried and FTX in November 2022. Rolle said that she was part of a group that met with the Securities Commission of the Bahamas on Nov. 12 related to the collapse of FTX.
Although her testimony did not offer much new information, she shared with the jury that FTX transferred all digital assets held in its custody to the Bahamas regulator the same day a court order was issued.
Joseph Pimbley, a financial consultant with a Ph.D. in physics, was the second witness presented by the defense. His work on the case included an analysis of FTX’s code and database.
According to Pimbley’s findings, in November last year, FTX had over $5.8 billion in assets from accounts with spot margin, lending or futures trading enabled. The amount does not include balances of FTX entities or Alameda Research. During the cross-examination, prosecutors pointed out that the FTX database did not accurately reflect its bank accounts at that time.
Oct. 19: Former FTX legal counsel presents spreadsheet used to track $2.1 billion in loans to SBF, other execs
FTX’s former general counsel Can Sun was unaware of the exchange’s commingling of funds with Alameda Research, he told jurors on Oct. 19 as part of his testimony in Sam Bankman-Fried’s criminal trial.
Sun said he learned about Alameda’s exemption from the liquidation engine system from other employees in August 2022. Normally, the system would liquidate loss-making trades, but Alameda reportedly bypassed the mechanism due to its exception.
Upon learning about the problem, Sun allegedly worked on a plan to fix the issue. The plan would include a delay-liquidation mechanism to replace the non-exemption on Alameda’s account. According to the plan, the delayed mechanism would later be applied to other market makers on FTX, which also sought to notify customers and regulators about the issue. According to San, the plan was stalled by other FTX departments and was never implemented.
Furthermore, Sun acknowledged that he relied on Bankman-Fried’s statements about segregating customer funds to develop the company’s terms of service and answer regulators’ inquiries. FTX’s terms of services said that “none of the Digital Assets in your account are the property of, or shall or may be loaned to, FTX Trading” — in opposition to what was apparently happening between the sister companies. The same terms would apply to fiat assets, Sun noted in his testimony.
Additionally, the former FTX attorney disclosed a spreadsheet he used to trace loans made by Alameda to Bankman-Fried, Gary Wang, Ryan Salame and Nishad Singh. According to the spreadsheet, Alameda loaned them $2.1 billion across 35 loans.
These loans were used to fund other venture investments by FTX. While this process wasn’t the most transparent way of carrying out investments, it was a legal option at the time, Sun said.
According to prosecutors, the spreadsheet did not include millions of dollars transferred to Salame and Bankman-Fried. Sun said he was unaware of the additional transactions.
Sun traveled from Japan to testify in court as part of his non-prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice.
The trial of Bankman-Fried will resume on Oct. 26. The prosecution expects to rest its case on that date. The defense counsel has not yet confirmed whether a case will be brought.
Oct. 18: “Lawyers should do better than this” — Judge Kaplan
District Judge Lewis Kaplan ran out of patience during Sam Bankman-Fried’s trial on Oct. 18, calling out on lawyers representing both parties in the criminal court case. The judge’s comments came after a witness fleeing Texas for the trial testified for roughly 15 minutes.
Cory Gaddis, a policy specialist at Google, spent over three hours flying only to confirm that Google’s metadata indicates Caroline Ellison and Bankman-Fried owned a fabricated balance sheet of Alameda Research. According to Ellison’s testimony from last week, she developed seven alternative spreadsheets to mislead Alameda’s lenders about its financial health in 2022.
In cross-examination, Bankman-Fried’s defense counsel ended Gaddis’ testimony at the third question after realizing he wasn’t a technical expert.
“Lawyers should do better than this,” Judge Kaplan said, complaining about prosecutors and the defense counsel’s witness strategies.
For example, in the morning, former FTX lobbyist Eliora Kats took a short test just to confirm FTX had publicly advocated in Washington, D.C. for crypto regulation, which was already public knowledge, noted Judge Kaplan.
“These people [jurors] are giving up weeks of their lives, and I care about it,” he noted.
Prosecutors are expected to rest their case on Oct. 25. The defense counsel has not yet confirmed it hasa case.
Oct. 18: Forensic analysis of Alameda and FTX accounts
Accounting professor Peter Easton provided a breakdown of the alleged commingling of funds between FTX and Alameda Research since 2021. Easton is an accounting specialist working on forensic financial analysis and testified on Oct. 18 at the Southern District Court of New York as part of Bankman-Fried’s criminal trial.
According to Easton’s analysis, Alameda invested in Genesis Capital, K5 Global Holdings, Anthropic PBC, Dave Inc, Modulo Capital and other ventures, partially using funds from FTX customers. In June 2022, Alameda had a negative balance of $11.3 billion with FTX, while the companies’ liquid assets stood at $2.3 billion, meaning a gap of $9 billion between the sister firms.
Another critical point from the analysis: Alameda has 57 accounts with FTX that could have negative balances, whereas no other customer could do so. The analysis challenges Bankman-Fried’s defense argument that Alameda had similar privileges as other market makers on FTX.
Another finding of the analysis is that Alameda repaid $6.6 billion in loans to crypto lenders during the bear market in 2022. Of these funds, 68% ($4.5 billion) were traced as customer assets, while 32% ($2.1 billion) came from its own funds.
At least 35 properties in the Bahamas were purchased with customer funds totaling $228.5 million, according to Easton.
Oct. 13: BlockFi would not have filed for bankruptcy without the FTX debacle
The BlockFi team warned its leadership about the crypto lender’s over-exposure to FTX Token (FTT) in August 2021, according to evidence presented in court on Oct. 13 during Sam Bankman-Fried’s trial.
A credit memo prepared by BlockFi’s team in August 2021 recommended against a loan of 10,000 Bitcoin (BTC) to Alameda Research, worth nearly $470 million at the time.
Zac Prince, founder and former CEO of BlockFi, said the loan was denied, but Alameda increased its borrowings with BlockFi in the following months, reaching $1 billion in the second quarter of 2022. Prince testified that Alameda had always paid its loans on time until the collapse of FTX in November 2022, and that the loans had always been overcollateralized. He was unfamiliar with the fact that Alameda was paying the loans using funds from FTX customers.
One of the stress scenarios presented by BlockFi’s team in 2021 observed that if Alameda entered into default, with all lenders calling for repayment at the same time, the price of FTT would drop 60% to 75% in a day (or more).
Another stress evaluation during the same period noted that even in a scenario in which all collaterals decline 100%, FTX would still have a positive balance of $638 million in assets. The projections were made based on consolidated balance sheets presented by Alameda.
The connection between Alameda and BlockFi started at the end of 2021, when the first $15 million was lent to Alameda. Prince noted that Alameda went through due diligence processes across many departments on BlockFi, but the financial documents provided were unaudited.
Alameda was lent capital under open-term loans, which allowed borrowers such as BlockFi to call for repayment of funds at any time. In June 2022, following the collapse of the Terra ecosystem, BlockFi called back millions in loans owned by Alameda.
According to Prince, the loans were paid, and the companies deepened their relationship amid the bear market.
Seeking capital from investors during the same period, BlockFi entered into an agreement with FTX US that included $400 million in credit and a potential acquisition of BlockFi in July 2023, which never happened since both companies went bankrupt as a result of last November’s events.
Alameda offered FTT, SOL (SOL) and SRM as collateral for loans. According to Prince’s testimony, those tokens were held on BlockFi’s account on FTX. BlockFi also used FTX as a trading platform for its clients’ orders. At the time of FTX bankruptcy, the crypto lending platform had $650 million lent to Alameda and $350 million in funds available for trading.
Once it became clear that funds were impaired and loans wouldn’t be repaid, BlockFi filed for bankruptcy. Prince noted that despite the challenges of the bear market, BlockFi would not have filed for bankruptcy without the FTX debacle.
Oct. 12: Ellison’s testimony continues, with further focus on relationship with Sam Bankman-Fried
Caroline Ellison alleges #SBF utilized Thai sex worker IDs in a bid to unfreeze $1B in Alameda funds before resorting to bribery. pic.twitter.com/COPHbaECz6
— Cointelegraph (@Cointelegraph) October 12, 2023
The cross-examination of Caroline Ellison started in the Southern District Court of New York on Oct. 12, with the former CEO of Alameda Research discussing the decision-making process between Alameda and FTX, as well as how her romantic relationship with Bankman-Fried played a role in the events leading up to the exchange’s collapse.
The defense counsel first explored the capital lent to Alameda by crypto lenders Genesis and Voyager. According to Ellison’s testimony, funds borrowed by Alameda could be legally used for a range of purposes, including trading activities and covering the company’s operating expenses. The defense used her remarks to show that Alameda’s lenders knew the capital was being used for undefined purposes.
She also reported that communication with Bankman-Fried deteriorated after their last breakup in April 2022, with her avoiding meeting with the former partner one-on-one and preferring to communicate via Signal or group meetings instead. The communication challenges a her concerns about FTX venture investments made Ellison consider resigning as CEO of Alameda in early 2022.
In response to questions from Bankman-Fried’s defense attorney, Ellison acknowledged having held at least 20 meetings with prosecutors since December 2022 as part of her cooperation agreement, including a review of her answers on Oct. 9, one day prior to her testifying as a witness in the case. In December, before an agreement was in place with the U.S. government, she acknowledged the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched her house.
During the bear market, Ellison also created financial forecasts of how much money would be needed to hedge Alameda against market downturns, according to her testimony. She discovered that Alameda would have to sell billions of dollars in assets to have an appropriate hedge.
Additionally, Ellison discussed Alameda’s Northern Dimension bank account, which FTX used while it had difficulty opening its own. Later on, around the end of 2021 and the beginning of 2022, FTX was able to get its account and began redirecting users’ funds. However, legacy customers still sent funds to Northern Dimension’s account. As evidence, the defense pointed to one of her meetings with prosecutors in December 2022, in which she suggested that Bankman-Fried was unaware that FTX customers’ funds were still being sent to Alameda.
Oct. 11: Caroline Ellison details the final months of FTX
On her second day of testimony at the trial of Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried trial on Oct. 11, Caroline Ellison provided more information about the months leading up to the FTX debacle in November 2022. Lenders required Alameda Research to repay millions in loans in mid-June following the market downturn in May, according to Ellison. “I was very stressed out,” she said.
Genesis Capital was one of these lenders, recalling $500 million in loans, according to screenshots taken from conversations between Ellison, Bankman-Fried and Genesis employees via Telegram.
At the time, Alameda had over $13 billion of debt on its credit line with FTX, while its open-term loans exceeded $1.3 billion. As per Ellison’s testimony, Bankman-Fried instructed her to devise “alternative ways” to disclose Alameda’s financial information to lenders, specifically Genesis.
According to Ellison, Genesis could recall all loans to Alameda if it were aware of Alameda’s true financial status, as well as damage its reputation. “I didn’t want Genesis to know that,” she stated about Alameda’s multibillion-dollar liability toward FTX.
As per prosecutors’ evidence, Ellison worked on at least seven alternative spreadsheets for Genesis. A spreadsheet sent by Alameda to Genesis in June listed $10.3 billion in total liabilities, whereas the actual amount was approximately $15 billion at the time.
Bankman-Fried’s plans to survive the storm included raising capital from Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. According to evidence presented in court, Ellison made a list of “things Sam is freaking out about” months before the exchange collapsed.
The list featured raising capital from “the MBS,” borrowing more capital from BlockFi, which had already lent Alameda over $660 million, as well as “getting regulators to crack down on Binance,” in an effort by Bankman-Fried to expand FTX’s market share, Ellison said.
She also mentioned a $150 million bribe that FTX allegedly paid to a Chinese official in 2021 to release funds frozen there as part of an investigation into money laundering. The alleged bribe is not included in the trial.
Oct. 10: Gary Wang is cross-examined, star witness Ellison enters
The fourth day of the trial began with Gary Wang concluding his testimony. He was cross-examined by one of SBF’s lawyers, Christian Everdell.
During the cross-examination, Wang was asked about Bankman-Fried’s intention to shut down Alameda, to which Wang responded that SBF thought there was a “30% chance” it should be shut down. He also said he wasn’t sure whether the tweet by Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao or leaked financials caused the FTX bank run.
After Wang was dismissed by Judge Lewis Kaplan, Ellison, the former CEO of Alameda and an ex-girlfriend of Bankman-Fried, was called to the witness stand.
In the opening questions, Ellison was asked why she was guilty of the crimes for which she was accused and responded that “Alameda took several billions of dollars from FTX customers and used it for investments.”
She reportedly placed the entire blame for the misuse of FTX user funds on Bankman-Fried. Ellison claimed he “set up the systems” that allowed Alameda to take $14 billion from the exchange.
Ellison also revealed personal information about her relationship with the defendant, including his aspirations to be U.S. president and that he considered paying former U.S. President Donald Trump not to run for reelection.
Additionally, she testified on the firm buying back FTX Tokens (FTT) from Binance or else “Binance would cause trouble,” along with using loans from Genesis in 2021 as a funding source.
“Alameda took several billions of dollars from FTX customers and used it for investments,” said Ellison, according to reports. “I sent balance sheets that made Alameda look less risky than it was.”
Ellison admitted to not feeling qualified for the CEO role at Alameda, though she was encouraged by SBF, and said she took a $3.5 million loan from the firm “for a gambling company people at FTX wanted to put in my name” and for political contributions.
Oct. 6 Gary Wang’s testimony continues admits to “special privileges” given to FTX on Alameda
The trial continued for the fourth day on Friday, Oct. 6, with a shorter session ending at 2:00 pm Eastern Time because jurors opted not to take a lunch break.
Wang, the former chief technology officer of FTX, continued to testify after a brief stint the previous afternoon. On this day, Wang testified that the back-end code and the database for FTX.com kept track of many coins a user had and the availability of a feature called “allow negative.”
According to Inner City Press, the prosecutor asked Wang what would happen if that feature was checked to which Wang said, “Then you are allowed to go beyond. “
He then said that Alameda’s account was allowed this special privilege and could, therefore, “trade more than it had in its account. They had a large line of credit. And it could trade faster than others.”
“It withdrew more than it had in its account, like $8 billion in fiat and crypto,” Wang said. When asked where the money came from, he said, “from FTX customers.”
According to Wang’s testimony, he overheard Bankman-Fried saying Alameda could withdraw up to $50–$100 million from FTX. He said that after a 2020 database query, he saw Alameda’s balance was negative to an amount greater than the revenue of FTX itself.
Wang pleaded guilty to four charges in December 2022, one of which was wire fraud. Like Ellison, Wang has agreed to cooperate with officials via a plea deal that could see him avoid up to 50 years in prison.
Oct. 5: Wang details relationship between FTX and Alameda Research
In over four hours of testimony, Wang provided in-depth details about the relationship between the companies and how the crypto empire ended up with an $8 billion hole in customer assets.
According to Wang, a few months after FTX’s inception, in 2019, Alameda received special privileges from FTX. Prosecutors used screenshots of FTX’s database and code available on GitHub to show that Alameda was allowed to have an unlimited negative balance at FTX, a special line of credit of $65 billion in 2022 and an exemption from the liquidation engine.
The commingling of funds and problems between companies evolved over time. In 2020, Bankman-Fried instructed Wang that Alameda’s negative balance should not exceed FTX’s revenue — a rule that changed over the years, according to Wang’s testimony. In late 2021, for example, Alameda’s liability to FTX stood at $3 billion, up from $300 million in 2020.
“I trusted his judgment,” Wang said when asked why he agreed to Alameda’s privileges.
However, these alleged privileges were part of Alameda’s role as a primary market maker for FTX, the defense argued later during Wang’s testimony. The defense counsel also noted that other market makers had similar privileges at FTX, and being able to go negative was a key feature of any market maker.
Another point emphasized by prosecutors was the MobileCoin exploit in 2021. Bankman-Fried allegedly told Wang and Ellison to add the multimillion-dollar deficit to Alameda’s balance sheet instead of keeping it on FTX to hide the loss from FTX investors.
Months before FTX’s collapse, Bankman-Fried, Wang and former engineering director Nishad Singh discussed shutting down Alameda and replacing its role with other market makers. The company’s liabilities, however, were too high at the time, sitting at $14 billion. Alameda remained in operation until November 2022.
Wang’s testimony will continue on Oct. 10, the same day Ellison’s will be heard.
Oct. 5: Yedidia cross-examination, witness testimonies in focus
Day 3 of the #SBF trial, we’re here bright and early! ☀️ pic.twitter.com/PQ1rQV38Px
— Cointelegraph (@Cointelegraph) October 5, 2023
A liability of $8 billion from Alameda to FTX was at the center of prosecutors’ cross-examination of Adam Yedidia on Oct. 5. Yedidia is a close friend of Bankman-Fried and was a developer at FTX. He was also one of ten people to live in Bankman-Fried’s $35 million luxury resort in the Bahamas.
According to Yedidia’s testimony, since early 2021, FTX used an Alameda account labeled North Dimension to deposit users’ funds while facing difficulties opening its own bank account. Funds would be considered Alameda’s liability toward FTX, which reached $8 billion in June 2022.
While Yedidia was aware of the funds sent to Alameda’s account, he didn’t see it as a concern when he first heard about it in 2021. However, after learning about the liability amount in 2022, he voiced his concerns to Bankman-Fried during a tennis game. According to Yedidia, Bankman-Fried said the debt should be settled between the companies within six months to three years.

“I trusted Sam, Caroline, and others in Alameda to handle the situation,” he said, answering questions from prosecutors. Upon learning that Alameda was not only holding the funds but using them to pay its debtors, Yedidia resigned in November 2022.
While prosecutors used the case to illustrate how the companies were commingling funds, Bankman-Fried’s defense counsel sought to share a broader picture of FTX and Alameda’s relationship with the jury.
The defense highlighted that FTX was growing fast, with its leadership working over 10 hours a day during the 2021 bull market, including Bankman-Fried, who oversaw several parts of the company at the time.
The defense counsel also pointed out that Yedidia had been under several inquiries from prosecutors under an immunity order, meaning cooperation with prosecutors would protect him from facing any charges regarding his role at FTX.
Also, according to Bankman-Fried’s defense, FTX’s difficulties opening a bank account and its reliance on Alameda’s North Dimension to deposit funds were well known. Yedidia’s cross-examination will resume this afternoon in the federal courtroom in lower Manhattan.
Two witnesses testified during the second part of the Bankman-Fried trial on Oct. 5: Matthew Huang, co-founder of Paradigm and Wang, co-founder of FTX and Alameda Research.
Paradigm invested a total of $278 million in FTX in two funding rounds between 2021 and 2022. According to Huang, the venture capital firm was not aware of the commingling of funds between FTX and Alameda, nor of the privileges that Alameda had with the crypto exchange.
Such privileges included Alameda’s exemption from FTX’s liquidation engine (a tool that closes positions at risk of liquidation). With the exemption, Alameda was able to leverage its position and maintain a negative balance with FTX.
The Paradigm co-founder also acknowledged that the firm did not conduct deeper due diligence on FTX, instead relying on information provided by Bankman-Fried.
Another concern for Paradigm was FTX not having a board of directors. According to Huang, Bankman-Fried was “very resistant” to the idea of having investors on FTX’s board of directors but promised to build one and appoint experienced executives to serve on it.
During his brief testimony, Wang acknowledged that he, along with Bankman-fried and Ellison, had committed wire fraud, securities fraud and commodities fraud.
Wang also noted that Alameda had special privileges with FTX, such as the ability to withdraw unlimited funds from the exchange, as well as a line of credit of $65 billion. To illustrate these privileges, Wang pointed out that any other market maker would have a credit line in the millions, while Alameda had a credit line in the billions.
A loan of approximately $200 million to $300 million from Alameda was also mentioned by Wang, allegedly as part of the purchase of other crypto firms. However, the loans were never credited to his account. His testimony will continue on Oct. 6.
Oct. 4: DOJ and Bankman-Fried’s defense state their arguments
The first hours of SBF’s trial have offered a glimpse of the arguments the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the former FTX CEO’s defense will bring to court in the coming weeks.
After a jury selection in the morning, both parties gave opening statements to the 12-person jury present in the court.
The DOJ took a tough stance against Bankman-Fried in its first statement, portraying the FTX founder as someone who deliberately lied to investors to enrich himself and expand his crypto empire.
According to the DOJ, Bankman-Fried lied to FTX customers and investors, using Alameda as a key partner to “steal customers’ funds,” a phrase that was frequently used during the opening statements.

As per the trial preview, the DOJ will focus its arguments on allegations that Bankman-Fried misled customers, investors and lenders regarding the safety of their funds while using Alameda to steal their money and influence politicians in Washington.
The defense, meanwhile, brought arguments about Bankman-Fried being a young entrepreneur who made business decisions that “didn’t work out.” The defense denied the existence of secret transactions between Alameda and FTX or a backdoor used to steal customer funds. According to the previous arguments presented, all transactions were legitimate or made in good faith by Bankman-Fried during the crypto market downturn and the subsequent collapse of FTX in November 2022.
The defense also highlighted the role of Binance in the bank run that led to FTX’s collapse. Testimonies will continue throughout the day.
According to the defense, Bankman-Fried assumed FTX was allowed to loan funds to Alameda as part of a business relationship with the market maker, and there was no secret door for transactions between the companies.
Prosecutors also noted that Ellison, Wang and Singh would offer the jury insider details about Bankman-Fried’s role in FTX’s operations and alleged crimes. However, the defense pointed out that as part of the cooperation agreement with the government, they were supposed to give testimony against Bankman-Fried, raising doubts about their credibility.
The defense also downplayed the accusations against the nature of the relationship between FTX and Alameda, arguing that FTX margin traders were aware of the risks associated with transactions.
“There was no theft,” the defense claimed. “It’s not a crime to be the CEO of a company that files for bankruptcy.”
In the second half of the first day of the trial, the jury heard from two witnesses: Mark Julliard, a French trader and former client of FTX, and Adam Yedidia, a friend of Sam Bankman-Fried and former employee at Alameda Research and FTX.
In his testimony, Julliard said he had four Bitcoin (BTC) held at FTX at the time of the exchange’s collapse, worth nearly $100,000. He admitted that FTX and Bankman-Fried’s marketing efforts, as well as the notable venture capital companies backing FTX, gave him the confidence to use the exchange for crypto trading. He assumed that venture capital firms had done due diligence on FTX and its leadership.
During the questioning, prosecutors emphasized that the trader used FTX exclusively for spot trading and was unaware that the exchange used client funds for crypto trading with Alameda Research.
Questions for Yedidia were focused on his educational background at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he first met Bankman-Fried and had two professional experiences with the FTX founder. Yedidia worked at Alameda briefly in 2017 as a trader and then returned to work for FTX in 2021 as a developer. He was among 10 people living in the Bahamas on FTX’s $30 million real estate.
In Yedidia’s testimony, prosecutors used former FTX ads as evidence that the company was always positioning itself as a safe, trusted and easy way to invest in cryptocurrency, including marketing campaigns with NFL player Tom Brady and comedian Larry David. The trial will resume Oct. 5.
Oct. 3: SBF trial begins

The trial of Bankman-Fried began on Oct. 3 with jury selection. Bankman-Fried is charged with seven counts of conspiracy and fraud in connection with the collapse of FTX, the cryptocurrency exchange he co-founded. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The case is being heard by Judge Lewis Kaplan, who has presided over a long list of other high-profile cases, including ones involving detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the Gambino crime family, Prince Andrew and Donald Trump.
Bankman-Fried was ordered to be jailed on Aug. 11 after Kaplan found that his sharing of former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison’s personal papers amounted to witness intimidation. Alameda Research was a trading house also founded by Bankman-Fried. Previously, he had been under house arrest in his parents’ home in Stanford, California, on a $250-million bond.
December: SBF arrested
Bankman-Fried was arrested in the United States on his arrival from the Bahamas on Dec. 21, 2022. He had been arrested in the Bahamas on Dec. 12 after the U.S. government formally notified the country of charges the U.S. was filing against him. He declared his intention to fight extradition from the Caribbean nation but changed his mind after a week in Bahaman jail and consented to extradition.
Meanwhile, FTX co-founder Gary Wang and Alameda Research CEO (and reportedly sometime SBF girlfriend) Ellison agreed to plead guilty in the burgeoning case.
November: FTX collapses
Bankman-Fried’s troubles began when reports emerged on Nov. 2 that Alameda Research had a large holding of FTX Token (FTT), FTX’s utility token. That revelation led to questions about the relationship between the two entities. On Nov. 6, Changpeng Zhao, CEO of rival exchange Binance, announced that his exchange would liquidate its FTT holdings, which were estimated to be worth $2.1 billion. Zhao turned down an offer tweeted by Ellison to buy Binance’s FTT.
A run began on FTX. Bankman-Fried gave reassurances on Twitter (now X) that the exchange’s “assets are fine” and accused “a competitor” of spreading rumors. By Nov. 8, the price of FTT had fallen from $22 to $15.40.
It’s only been one week since SBF’s notorious “FTX is fine. Assets are fine.” pic.twitter.com/zKoILqquHF
— Robert Smith (@BondHack) November 14, 2022
Also on Nov. 8, Bankman-Fried announced on Twitter that he had come to an agreement with Zhao “on a strategic transaction.” He wrote, “Our teams are working on clearing out the withdrawal backlog as is. This will clear out liquidity crunches; all assets will be covered 1:1.”
On Nov. 9, Zhao announced that Binance would not pursue the acquisition of FTX after due diligence and more reports of mishandled funds. The price of Bitcoin (BTC) plummeted to $15,600. The FTX and Alameda Research websites went dark for a few hours. When the FTX website came back, it bore a warning against making deposits and was unable to process withdrawals.
On Nov. 10, Bankman-Fried posted a 22-part Twitter thread that began with “I’m sorry.” It was the first of a long string of public statements he made about the exchange’s fall. The following day, the entire staff of Alameda Research quit, and FTX, FTX US and Alameda Research filed for bankruptcy in the United States. Bankman-Fried resigned as FTX CEO and was replaced by John J. Ray III, who was best known for his role in the Enron bankruptcy.
SBF and FTX before the fall
At the beginning of 2022, FTX had a $32-billion valuation and was thought to be in enviable financial condition. Bankman-Fried was seen as a respected business leader by much of the crypto community and the world at large. He was photographed with political leaders and spoke at congressional hearings.
Maxine Waters is chairing the investigation into FTX https://t.co/oFMctH4rRh pic.twitter.com/Ox6O5w4nOl
— Jordan Schachtel @ dossier.today (@JordanSchachtel) November 17, 2022
He had gained a reputation as a philanthropist, pursuing a philosophy popular among academics known as “effective altruism.” Part of his implementation of that philosophy was political activism in the form of financial support for candidates.
As the crypto winter set in, Bankman-Fried spoke of FTX and Alameda Research’s “responsibility to seriously consider stepping in, even if it is at a loss to ourselves, to stem contagion.” The companies made a bid for Voyager Digital that was rebuffed.
FTX made a deal with Visa to introduce its own debit card in 40 countries.
Bankman-Fried, Ellison and other alumni of Jane Street Capital founded Alameda Research in 2017. Bankman-Fried went on to found FTX with Wang in 2019. Zhao was an early investor in the exchange.
This is a developing story, and further information will be added as it becomes available.
You may like
Politics
Tariffs, explained: How they work and why they matter
Published
2 hours agoon
April 19, 2025By
admin
What are tariffs?
Tariffs are taxes placed on imported goods by a government or a supranational union. Occasionally, tariffs can be applied to exports as well. They generate government revenue and serve as a trade regulation tool, often to shield domestic industries.
Four main categories of tariffs are:
- Ad valorem tariffs: These are calculated as a percentage of the good’s value. For instance, a 20% tax might be placed on $100 of goods.
- Specific tariffs: These are fixed fees based on the quantity of goods. For example, there might be a tariff of $5 per imported kilogram of sugar.
- Compound tariffs: These combine a specific duty and an ad valorem duty applied to the same imported goods. Both tariffs are calculated together to determine the total tax. For example, a country might place a tariff on imported wine at $5 per liter plus 10% of the wine’s value.
- Mixed tariffs: Mixed tariffs apply either a specific duty or an ad valorem duty, based on predefined conditions. For instance, for imported trucks, a country might charge either $5,000 per vehicle or 15% of the car’s value, whichever is greater.
The objective of such policy is to influence international trade flows, protect domestic industries, and respond to unfair practices by foreign countries. When a tariff is applied to an imported good, it raises its cost, making domestically produced alternatives more lucrative for customers regarding price.
In the US, the Trump administration uses reciprocal tariffs as a key instrument in influencing the trade policies of other countries. Reciprocal tariffs are trade duties a country imposes in retaliation to tariffs or barriers set by another country. This policy seeks to correct trade imbalances and safeguard domestic industries.
Tariffs are generally collected by the customs departments of a country at ports of entry based on the declared value and classification of goods.
Did you know? Some countries use tariff-rate quotas, allowing a set quantity of a product to be imported at a lower tariff. Once the quota is exceeded, a higher tariff kicks in. This system balances domestic protection with access to global markets, especially in sectors like agriculture and textiles.
Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy
US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on April 2, 2025, a day he called Liberation Day, citing his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The order placed a minimum 10% tariff on all US imports effective April 5, 2025. Reciprocal tariffs went into effect on April 9, 2025.
Trump stated that the US would apply reciprocal tariffs at roughly half the rate imposed by other countries. For instance, the US imposed a 34% tariff in response to China’s 67%. A 25% tariff on all automobile imports was also announced.
The Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy is rooted in the belief that the US faced long-standing trade imbalances and unfair treatment by global trading partners. To address this, his administration pushed for what it called reciprocal tariffs, aiming at setting a tariff structure that matched or at least was close to tariffs that foreign nations imposed on American exports.
Under this approach, the administration used tariff policies to pressure countries to lower their trade barriers or renegotiate trade deals. The policy drew support from domestic manufacturers and labor groups for attempting to rebalance trade and support the US industry. But it also sparked criticism from economists and international allies who viewed it as protectionist and destabilizing the prevalent economic system in the world.
The reciprocal tariffs policy has reshaped US trade relations and marked a departure from decades of multilateral, open global trade policy.
Did you know? Tariffs can reshape supply chains. To avoid high import taxes, companies often relocate manufacturing to countries with favorable trade agreements. This shift doesn’t always benefit consumers, as savings are not always passed down, and logistics become more complex.
The US–China tariff war: A defining economic conflict
The US–China tariff war, which began in 2018 under the first Trump administration, marked a significant shift in global economic relations. The conflict between the world’s two largest economies had broad implications for global supply chains, inflation and geopolitical dynamics.
The trade conflict between the US and China wasn’t just a bilateral spat. It signaled a structural rethinking of trade policy in a multipolar world. The trade war began after the US imposed sweeping tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers by China.
Over time, the US levied tariffs on more than $360 billion worth of Chinese goods. China retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion of US exports, targeting key sectors like agriculture and manufacturing.
The conflict disrupted major supply chains and raised costs for American businesses and consumers. American farmers were hit hard by retaliatory Chinese tariffs on soybeans, leading the US government to provide billions in subsidies to offset losses.
While the Phase One Agreement in 2020 eased tensions and required China to increase purchases of US goods and enforce intellectual property protections, many tariffs remained in place. The Biden administration retained most of the economic measures imposed by the first Trump administration, signaling bipartisan concern over China’s trade practices.
As of April 10, 2025, Trump had imposed 125% tariffs on China, while for 75 countries, he had paused the imposition of tariffs for 90 days.
Compared to disputes with allies like the European Union or Canada, the stakes are higher in the US–China conflict, and the consequences are more far-reaching.
Here are the responses of various governments to Trump’s tariffs:
- Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney implemented a 25% tariff on US-made cars and trucks.
- China will impose a 34% tariff on all US imports, effective April 10.
- The French prime minister described the tariffs as an economic catastrophe.
- Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni criticized the tariffs as wrong.
- European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen pledged a unified response and prepared countermeasures.
- Taiwan’s government denounced the tariffs as unreasonable.
How do tariffs work?
When a tariff is applied — for example, a 30% tax on imported steel — it raises the price of that good for importers. They, in turn, pass these added costs to downstream businesses, which further transfer these costs to consumers.
For importers, tariffs mean higher purchase costs. If a US company imports machinery from abroad and faces a tariff, its total cost increases. This possibly reduces its profit margins or forces it to search for alternatives. Exporters in other countries may suffer if US buyers reduce orders due to higher prices, hurting their competitiveness.
Domestic producers may benefit initially from a high tariff regime. Tariffs can shield them from cheaper foreign competition, allowing them to increase sales and potentially make profits. But if their operations rely on imported components subject to tariffs, their input costs may rise, offsetting gains.
Consumers often bear the brunt. Tariffs can lead to price hikes on everyday goods — from electronics to apparel. In the long term, high tariffs contribute to inflation and reduce purchasing power.
Tariffs also disrupt global supply chains. Many products are assembled using components from multiple countries. High tariffs on one component can cause delays, prompt redesigns, or force companies to relocate manufacturing, increasing complexity and costs.
Overall, while tariffs aim to protect domestic industries, their impact is felt across the economy through altering prices, trade flows and business strategies. One way or another, tariffs influence everyone — from factory owners to workers and everyday shoppers.
Trump excluded various tech products, such as smartphones, chips, computers and certain electronics, from reciprocal tariffs, providing the tech sector with crucial relief from tariff pressure. This step of Trump eased pressure on tech stocks.
Trump’s tariff announcement on April 2 triggered a sharp sell-off in both equities and Bitcoin (BTC), with BTC plunging 10.5% in a week. Once seen as a non-correlated asset, Bitcoin now trades in sync with tech stocks during macro shocks. According to analysts, institutional investors increasingly treat BTC as a risk-on asset closely tied to policy shifts. While some view Bitcoin as digital gold, recent behavior shows it reacting more like Nasdaq stocks — falling during global uncertainty and rallying on positive sentiment.
Did you know? Tariff exemptions can be highly strategic. Governments may exclude specific industries or companies, allowing them to import goods tariff-free while competitors pay more. This creates an uneven playing field and can spark domestic controversy.
Why do tariffs matter for global markets?
Tariffs are a robust tool in the hands of governments to shape a nation’s economic and trade strategy. They are not merely taxes on imports but a tool that influences domestic production, consumer behavior and global trade relationships.
For the US, tariffs have historically been used to assert economic power on the global stage, protect emerging industries, and respond to unfair trade practices.
When countries with large economies are involved, tariff decisions can impact global supply chains, shift manufacturing hubs, and alter the price of goods worldwide. Even for the smaller countries, in an interconnected world, tariffs matter because their impact goes far beyond national borders.
Domestically, tariffs could boost local industries by making foreign goods more expensive. This can create jobs and support economic resilience in the short term.
Governments getting larger revenue via tariffs will enable them to reduce direct taxes as Trump proposed. But they can also raise prices for consumers, hurt exporters, and trigger retaliation from trade partners.
As geopolitical tensions rise and nations reevaluate their economic dependencies, tariffs have reemerged as a central element of US trade policy.
Whether used defensively or offensively, they shape the balance between protectionism and global engagement. This makes tariffs a matter not just of economics, but of national strategy and global influence.
Who sets tariff policy in the US?
In the US, tariff policy is shaped by a combination of legislative authority, executive power and administrative enforcement. Various agencies also help in the execution of tariff policy.
Congress holds the constitutional authority to regulate trade and impose tariffs. Over time, Congress has given the president significant power to change tariffs for national security, economic threats or trade violations.
The Office of the US Trade Representative plays a central role in formulating and negotiating US trade policy. It leads trade talks, manages disputes, and recommends tariff actions, often in coordination with the president and Congress.
US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for enforcing tariffs at ports of entry. CBP collects duties based on the classification and value of imported goods according to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.
Several major trade laws have shaped tariff policy in the US. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, aimed at protecting US farmers during the Great Depression, led to retaliatory tariffs and worsened global trade.
Later, the Trade Act of 1974 gave the president tools like Section 301, which was used extensively during the US–China trade war to impose retaliatory tariffs on unfair foreign practices.
Together, these actors and laws form the foundation of US tariff policy.
Criticism of Trump’s tariff policy
Criticism of Trump’s tariff policy surfaced following the announcement of reciprocal tariffs. Critics say this move bypasses Congress and sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive power in economic matters.
Detractors argue that these tariffs hurt American businesses more than their intended foreign targets. A Vox article argued that low-income people would be hit more by Trump’s tariffs than by the already reeling Wall Street. Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers fears that America may slip into recession due to tariffs, probably costing 2 million jobs nationwide.
Legal challenges have also emerged regarding Trump’s tariff policy. The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a conservative legal group, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Simplified, a small business based in Florida that sells planners and sources goods from China. The lawsuit claims that the president overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when imposing tariffs in a non-emergency trade context.
Small and mid-sized businesses, many of which rely on global supply chains, will have to deal with rising import costs due to tariffs. This may lead to inflation and reduced competitiveness of such businesses.
While the tariffs might hit China financially in the short term, the action could result in higher prices for US consumers and disrupt operations for American firms if the tariff policy continues for a long time.
Politics
‘Return hubs’ get UN backing in boost for potential plans to deport failed asylum seekers
Published
6 hours agoon
April 19, 2025By
admin
“Return hubs” that would see Britain send failed asylum seekers to another country have been endorsed by the UN’s refugee agency.
There have been reports that Sir Keir Starmer’s government is looking into deporting illegal migrants to the Balkans.
According to The Times, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper met the UN’s high commissioner for refugees last month to discuss the idea.
It would see the government pay countries in the Balkans to take failed asylum seekers – a prospect ministers hope might discourage people from crossing the Channel in small boats.
A total of 9,099 migrants have made that journey so far this year, including more than 700 on Tuesday this week – the highest number on a single day in 2025.
One migrant died while trying to make the crossing on Friday.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:11
One dead in Channel crossing
The UN’s refugee agency has set out how such hubs could work while meeting its legal standards in a document published earlier this week.
It recommended monitoring the hubs to make sure human rights standards are “reliably met”.
The country hosting the return hub would need to grant temporary legal status for migrants, and the country sending the failed asylum seekers would need to support it to make sure there are “adequate accommodation and reception arrangements”.
A UK government source said it was a helpful intervention that could make the legal pathway to some form of return hub model smoother.
Read more from Sky News:
How Japan could shape future of NHS
Can the Lib Dems secure election success?
It comes after the EU Commission proposed allowing EU members to set up so-called “return hubs” abroad, with member state Italy having already started sending illegal migrants abroad.
It sends people with no right to remain to Italian-run detention centres in Albania, something Sir Keir has taken an interest in since coming to power.
With Reform UK leading Labour in several opinion polls this year, the prime minister has been talking tough on immigration – but the figures around Channel crossings have made for difficult reading.
Politics
The Lib Dems want to be the nice guys of politics – but is that what voters want?
Published
7 hours agoon
April 19, 2025By
admin
Lib Dems don’t tend to listen to right-wing podcasts.
But if they did, they may be heartened by some of what they hear.
Take the interview Kemi Badenoch gave to the TRIGGERnometry show in February.
Ten minutes into the episode, one of the hosts recounts a conversation with a Tory MP who said the party lost the last election to the Lib Dems because they went too far to the right.
Everyone laughs.
Then in March, in a conversation with the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, the Tory leader was asked to describe a Liberal Democrat.
“Somebody who is good at fixing their church roof,” said Ms Badenoch.
She meant it as a negative.
Lib Dems now mention it every time you go near any of them with a TV camera.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:12
‘It’s a two-horse race!’
The pitch is clear, the stunts are naff
At times, party figures seem somewhat astonished the Tories don’t view them as more of a threat, given they were beaten by them in swathes of their traditional heartlands last year.
Going forward, the pitch is clear.
Sir Ed Davey wants to replace the Tories as the party of middle England.

Sir Ed rides on a rollercoaster. Pic: PA
One way he’s trying to do that is through somewhat naff and very much twee campaign stunts.
To open this local election race, the Lib Dem leader straddled a hobbyhorse and galloped through a blue fence.
More recently, he’s brandished a sausage, hopped aboard a rollercoaster and planted wildflowers.
Senior Lib Dems say they are “constantly asking” whether this is the correct strategy, especially given the hardship being faced by many in the country.
They maintain it is helping get their message out though, according to the evidence they have.
“I think you can take the issues that matter to voters seriously while not taking yourself too seriously, and I also think it’s a way of engaging people who are turned off by politics,” said Sir Ed.

Sir Ed on a hobby horse during the launch of the party’s local election campaign in the Walled Garden of Badgemore Park in Henley-on-Thames. Pic: PA
Pic: PA
‘What if people don’t want grown-ups?’
In that way, the Lib Dems are fishing in a similar pool of voters to Reform UK, albeit from the other side of the water’s edge.
Indeed, talk to Lib Dem MPs, and they say while some Reform supporters they meet would never vote for a party with the word “liberal” in its name, others are motivated more by generalised anger than any traditional political ideology.
These people, the MPs say, can be persuaded.
But this group also shows a broader risk to the Lib Dem approach.
Put simply, are they simply too nice for the fractured times we live in?
“The Lib Dems want to be the grown-ups in the room,” says Joe Twyman, director of Delta Poll.
“We like to think that the grown-ups in the room will be rewarded… but what if people don’t want grown-ups in the room, what if people want kids shitting on the floor.”

Sir Ed canoeing in the River Severn in Shrewsbury, Shropshire. Pic: PA
A plan that looks different to the status quo
The party’s answer to this is that they are alive to the trap Lib Dems have walked into in the past of adopting a technocratic tone and blandly telling the public every issue is a “bit more complicated” than it seems.
One senior figure says the Lib Dems are trying to do something quite unusual for a progressive centre-left party in making a broader emotional argument about why the public should pick them.
This source says that approach runs through the stunts but also through the focus on care and the party leader’s personal connection to the issue.
Presenting a plan that looks different to the status quo is another way to try to stand apart.
It’s why there has been a focus on attacking Donald Trump and talking up the EU recently, two areas left unoccupied by the main parties.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:09
‘A snivelling cretin’: Your response?
The focus on local campaigning
But beyond the national strategy, Lib Dems believe it’s their local campaigning that really reaps rewards.
In the run-up to the last election, several more regional press officers were recruited.
Many stories pumped out by the media office now have a focus on data that can be broken down to a constituency level and given to local news outlets.
Party sources say there has also been a concerted attempt to get away from the cliche of the Lib Dems constantly calling for parliament to be recalled.
“They beat us to it,” said one staffer of the recent recall to debate British Steel.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:08
Steel might have been ‘under orders’ from China
‘Gail’s bakery rule’
This focus on the local is helped by the fact many Lib Dem constituencies now look somewhat similar.
That was evidenced by the apparent “Gail’s bakery rule” last year, in which any constituency with a branch of the upmarket pastry purveyor had activists heaped on it.
The similarities have helped the Lib Dems get away from another cliche – that of the somewhat opportunist targeting of different areas with very different messages.
“There is a certain consistency in where we won that helps explain that higher vote retention,” said Lib Dem president Lord Pack.
“Look at leaflets in different constituencies [last year] and they were much more consistent than previous elections… the messages are fundamentally the same in a way that was not always the case in the past.”

Sir Ed in a swan pedalo on Bude Canal in Cornwall. Pic: PA
A bottom-up campaign machine
New MPs have also been tasked with demonstrating delivery and focusing doggedly on the issues that matter to their constituents.
One Home Counties MP says he wants to be able to send out leaflets by 2027, saying “everyone in this constituency knows someone who has been helped by their local Lib Dem”.
In the run-up to last year’s vote, strategists gave the example of the Lib Dem candidate who was invited to a local ribbon-cutting ceremony in place of the sitting Tory MP as proof of how the party can ingratiate itself into communities.
With that in mind, the aim for these local elections is to pick up councillors in the places the party now has new MPs, allowing them to dig in further and keep building a bottom-up campaign machine.
‘Anyone but Labour or Conservative’
But what of the next general election?
Senior Lib Dems are confident of holding their current 72 seats.
They also point to the fact 20 of their 27 second-place finishes currently have a Conservative MP.
Those will be the main focus, along with the 43 seats in which they finished third.
There’s also an acronym brewing to describe the approach – ABLOC or “Anyone but Labour or Conservative”.

Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch aren’t exactly flying high in the opinion polls
9% swing could make Sir Ed leader of the opposition
The hope is for the political forces to align and Reform UK to continue splitting the Tory vote while unpopularity with the Labour government and Conservative opposition triggers some to jump ship.
A recent pamphlet by Lord Pack showed if the Tories did not make progress against the other parties, just 25 gains from them by the Lib Dems – the equivalent of a 9% swing – would be enough to make Sir Ed leader of the opposition.
What’s more, a majority of these seats would be in the South East and South West, where the party has already picked up big wins.
As for the overall aim of all this, Lord Pack is candid the Lib Dems shouldn’t view a hung parliament as the best way to achieve the big prize of electoral reform because they almost always end badly for the smaller party.
Instead, the Lib Dem president suggests the potential fragmentation of politics could bring electoral reform closer in a more natural way.
“What percentage share of the vote is the most popular party going to get at the next general election, it’s quite plausible that that will be under 30%. Our political system can’t cope with that sort of world,” he said.
Whether Ms Badenoch will still be laughing then remains to be seen.
This is part of a series of local election previews with the five major parties. All five have been invited to take part.
Trending
-
Sports2 years ago
‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year ago
Story injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year ago
Game 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years ago
MLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years ago
Japan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years ago
Game-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years ago
Bank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway